Court or Tribunal: High Court of Australia
Catchwords: Appeal, Binding Financial Agreement, Binding Financial Agreement, Post-Nuptial Agreement, Pre-Nuptial Agreement, Pre-Nuptial Agreement
Judges:  Bell JEdelman JGageler JGordon JKeane JKiefel CJNettle J

Background: He was a multi-millionaire property developer, she was his much younger Eastern European bride who spoke little English. The couple met online in 2006 on a “website for potential brides” when the husband was 67 and she was 36. The husband, known as Mr Kennedy, had assets of at least $18 million. He was divorced from his first wife and had three adult children. Soon after he met the wife online, he told her that if they married, “you will have to sign paper. My money is for my children.” The agreement said the wife was to receive a total payment of $50,000 adjusted for inflation in the event of separation after at least three years of marriage. It also provided for the wife to receive a penthouse worth up to $1.5m, a Mercedes and continuing income, in the event the husband die 
 
  [Legal Issue]The Federal Circuit Court initially set aside the agreements, finding that they were signed “under duress born of inequality of bargaining power where there was no outcome to her that was fair and reasonable”. However, the Full Family Court ruled the agreements were binding, and said there had not been duress, undue influence or unconscionable conduct on the husband’s part. The High Court disagreed. It said the primary judge’s conclusion of undue influence was open on the evidence and it was unnecessary to decide whether the agreements could have also been set aside for duress. The case will now be sent back for the Federal Circuit Court to decide how the property pool should be divided between the two. Ms Thorne is seeking orders for a further $1.1 million plus a lump    [Court Orders]1.Appeal allowed. 2.Set aside the orders of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia made on 26 September 2016 and, in their place, order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs. 3.The respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal to this Court.     

Court or Tribunal: Full Court of the Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Divorce, Inheritance, Inheritance, Property, Property
Judges:  Aldridge JBryant CJRyan J

Background: The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Western Australia heard an Appeal by a husband who argued that an inheritance received 4 years after separation should not be included in the property to be divided between him and his ex-wife. The parties were married for 8 years and were divorced in 2011.They had one child who was 5 years old at the time of separation. In 2014 the husband received an inheritance from his father’s estate. The wife commenced proceedings more than 3 years after separation and was granted the Court’s leave under Section 44 (3) of the Family Law Act to pursue a property settlement claim. 
 
  [Legal Issue]The central issue on appeal was whether the trial Judge erred by including the husband’s post separation inheritance within the parties’ property pool available for division. The husband argued that his inheritance should not be included in the pool because of the degree of “connection” or more to the point, the lack of connection, between the inheritance and the parties’ matrimonial relationship. The husband was unsuccessful in taking that position and his appeal was dismissed. The Justices of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, Chief Justice Bryant, Justice Ryan and Justice Aldridge concluded that the Court retained a discretion as to how to approach the treatment of property acquired after separation. Conversely in the case of Holland & Holland [2017] FamC   [Court Orders](1) The appeal against the orders made by Magistrate Calverley on 17 November 2016 is dismissed. (2) The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal as agreed or in default of agreement as assessed. The husband was unsuccessful in excluding his post-separation inheritance from the asset pool. The trial judge assessed contributions as 65%/35% in the husband’s favour, which included a 10% adjustment to the wife for future needs. No appealable error established – Appeal dismissed      

Court or Tribunal: Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Catchwords: Briginshaw test, Contributions, De Facto Relationship, De Facto Relationships, Meaningful Relationship, Proceedings to Alter Property Interests, Property, Substantial Relationship
Judges:  Judge Brewster

Background: The case involved a sex worker who made a claim for a property order against a former client turned partner of 8 years. The applicant alleged that she lived in a de facto relationship with the respondent from 2003 until 2011. The parties met in 1999 when the applicant “was employed as a sex worker and the respondent was one of her clients”, their relationship evolving to a point where the “applicant began to involve the respondent with her family” and from “2000 onwards the sexual relationship between the parties ceased to be a commercial one” 
 
  [Legal Issue]The Court ultimately found that whilst the parties did have a relationship that exceeded “friendship”, it was not enough to constitute a de-facto relationship. There was no financial interdependence or children of the relationship and the applicant did not give up sex work for the respondent. In any event, the Court held that on the facts, it would not be just and equitable to make orders altering the party’s property interests. Parties to a supposed de-facto relationship must evidence more than a mere sexual relationship. The Court will consider the totality of the relationship including amongst others, living arrangements and financial interdependence to establish the existence of a de-facto relationship.   [Court Orders]The Court found that the couple were not in a de facto relationship and as such the claim for property fails.